HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2020 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Shashank Tilhari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondents. 2. The captioned application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant challenging therein, the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 4169 of 2025, Ritesh Diwakar Vs. State of U.P. & Another, whereby the criminal revision filed by the applicant had been dismissed on the ground of delay. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant, in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, had given categorical reasons of the delay in filing the criminal revision but the revisional court has not considered the said reasons and by an unreasoned order, had rejected the criminal revision on the grounds of delay. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that it is well settled proposition of law that if categorical reasons have been given in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, it is obligatory on the court concerned to consider the said reasons and thereafter, to pass an order either accepting or rejecting the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashank Tilhari, Om Prakash Nag Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ritesh Diwakar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) application for condonation of delay whereas, it is apparent on the face of the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 that there is no consideration by the court concerned regarding the reasons given by the revisionist in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, through has tried to defend the order passed by the learned revisional court but could not justify as to how without considering the reasons for delay, the revisional court had rejected the criminal revision. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the applicant along with his criminal revision has filed an application for condonation of delay and in that application, in Paragraph No. 12, categorical reasons have been given which prevented the applicant to file criminal revision within the statutory time limit. I further find that the reasons, given in the application for condonation of delay, have not been considered by the learned revisional court while passing the order impugned in this application. 7. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the trial court should reconsider the application filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is hereby allowed. 8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow to consider and decide the application filed by the revisionist seeking condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision, afresh, by passing a speaking and reasoned order. December 3, 2025 Lokesh Kumar NA528 No. 2020 of 2025 2 (Manjive Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench